This brought out something about Dogs in the Vineyard that I haven’t seen expressed elsewhere. (This may just mean that I’m dense.) Dogs in the Vineyard is composed of two halves that join together. The GM brings his Town, which joins up with the specific Dog haracters that the players bring to the table. That’s not just a matter of personality. The players should be making characters that are about religious issues. The characters are the beginning of how the players address Premise in the game. They shouldn’t just be a bundle of Effectiveness.

Astute, Seth! This is why I tell people that the real game doesn't usually kick in until session 3. Dealing with a town is fun and fine, but no, the town is not the story, the Dogs are the story. Creating characters on purpose, if you have the foresight and issues in mind, can mean that you're playing the real game before session 3. I'm just now beginning to figure that out myself, with my friends' help.

Johnny Cash: don't miss "God's Gonna Cut You Down." (You can find it on YouTube if you look.)

I'm interested in some of the rolls for Content in those final conflicts, because her traits seem oriented toward a rage-filled, dangerous array of reactions, including at least one revenge killing. I can't imagine how most of those traits could have been drawn into the conflicts as she handled them, and I like the way that Crystal's sudden sense of being morally adrift paralleled the character's sense of being cut-off from her usual array of how she handles problems (if I'm reading correctly). Did Crystal find herself specifically avoiding certain traits during the conflicts? Did she roll well enough on the Attribute dice to insulate Content from having to use, for instance, the bad temper, the fanaticism, and the fearsome fist?

Thanks, Vincent! I got some more play in yesterday, so expect to see further writeups soon.

Regarding Johnny Cash: I now have American III, American IV, and American V on order. And I've heard Moby's "Run On", so that's close to "God's Gonna Cut You Down", right? (big cheesy grin)

Ron saith:

Quote

I'm interested in some of the rolls for Content in those final conflicts, because her traits seem oriented toward a rage-filled, dangerous array of reactions, including at least one revenge killing. I can't imagine how most of those traits could have been drawn into the conflicts as she handled them, and I like the way that Crystal's sudden sense of being morally adrift paralleled the character's sense of being cut-off from her usual array of how she handles problems (if I'm reading correctly). Did Crystal find herself specifically avoiding certain traits during the conflicts? Did she roll well enough on the Attribute dice to insulate Content from having to use, for instance, the bad temper, the fanaticism, and the fearsome fist?

Yes, I think that she was avoiding drawing on those Traits. This makes sense to me completely. Content would be perfectly willing to bring the wrath of God on someone if she were persuaded in her mind that the person was totally guilty. However, this situation didn't allow her to make an absolute judgment like that. Therefore, she restrained herself, mostly out of confusion.

It wasn't for lack of trying on my part. I'm finding that a guilty pleasure of being a DitV GM is trying to pressure the Dogs into violent confrontation. I'm always mentioning how they could escalate now, or how that fat 4d10 Trait would become available if only someone would throw a punch.... But, for the most part, the players have been nervous to cross that line. Which is good. They should be nervous, but I'm going to keep pushing until they do. Just for the sheer cussedness of it all.

Now, the seething violence in Content is counter-pointed by a couple of interesting aspects. The first is that Content is truly devoted to the Faith. She really does believe, and this is a major component of her life. The second is that Content is thoroughly suspicious of the religious hierarchy. So, she's like, "I trust God; it's His servants who I can't stand." Thus her "I'm a Dog" Relationship being at 2d4. That was lowered as a result of her initiation conflict where Content managed to get a teacher to admit that she was teaching things that she thought were wrong, simply because the religious hierarchy required it.

Of course, in the wake of Daniel's death, Content is struggling with her faith. How could God let a good man like Daniel die? That will be an emerging issue in play as well.

So, Content is just a bundle of dangerous beliefs and emotions. I'm really looking forward to seeing how she reacts to future towns.

This brought out something about Dogs in the Vineyard that I haven’t seen expressed elsewhere. (This may just mean that I’m dense.) Dogs in the Vineyard is composed of two halves that join together. The GM brings his Town, which joins up with the specific Dog haracters that the players bring to the table. That’s not just a matter of personality. The players should be making characters that are about religious issues. The characters are the beginning of how the players address Premise in the game. They shouldn’t just be a bundle of Effectiveness.

Ha! I was looking at anyway for a completely different reason, and I stumbled across this comment from Vincent:

Quote

The real situation that Dogs in the Vineyard cares about is the one between each of the PCs and each other and the Faith....You know how the real situation that The Mountain Witch cares about is the one between the PCs with their trust and their dark fates, and the GM throws grief at them to simply just apply pressure to that situation? Dogs is the same. It's better to understand a Dogs town with its sin and judgement as an encounter along the way, an attack by Oni or a freezing cold night, than as the thing that really matters.

So, there it is. It has been said before. Just thought I'd point it out.